Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Defense's (DOD) 11 federally funded research and development centers
(FFRDC), focusing on: (1) their funding and staff size; (2) the extent
of subcontracted work; (3) their parent organizations; (4) their
missions, core competencies, and capabilities; and (5) sponsors'
criteria for defining core work and oversight mechanisms and
responsibilities.
GAO found that: (1) although funding for FFRDC increased by about 23
percent between fiscal year (FY) 1985 and FY 1990, it has since
decreased; (2) in FY 1995, subcontracting totaled 7 percent, or $83
million, of FFRDC total funding; (3) of the eight parent organizations
that operate FFRDC, two do not operate organizations outside the FFRDC
structure and of the other six, two are universities and four are
organizations that have operations outside of the FFRDC structure, but
rely on FFRDC for the majority of their revenue; (4) FFRDC missions and
core competencies support the diverse research requirements of the
sponsor; (5) DOD defines core work as that which is consistent with an
FFRDC purpose, mission, and special relationship with the sponsor; (6)
FFRDC oversight is conducted at several levels including the DOD primary
sponsor, an advisory group, an executive agent, and DOD oversight
groups; and (7) the primary FFRDC sponsor must provide guidance on its
needs and priorities, approval and oversight of research, and annual and
5-year comprehensive reviews of FFRDC work to ensure quality,
efficiency, and appropriateness.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-96-54
TITLE: Federally Funded R&D Centers: Information on the Size and
Scope of DOD-Sponsored Centers
DATE: 04/24/96
SUBJECT: Defense contracts
Department of Defense contractors
Contract monitoring
Military research
Research and development contracts
Subcontracts
Research and development facilities
Research program management
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** <[email protected]> **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Post Office
and Civil Service, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate
April 1996
FEDERALLY FUNDED R&D CENTERS -
INFORMATION ON THE SIZE AND SCOPE
OF DOD-SPONSORED CENTERS
GAO/NSIAD-96-54
Federally Funded Centers
(705106)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
C\3 I - command, control, communications, and intelligence
C\4 I - command, control, communications, computers, and
intelligence
CNA - Center for Naval Analyses
DOD - Department of Defense
FFRDC - federally funded research and development center
IDA - Institute for Defense Analyses
LMI - Logistics Management Institute
MTS - members of technical staff
NDRI - National Defense Research Institute
OSD - Office of the Secretary of Defense
SEI - Software Engineering Institute
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-270464
April 24, 1996
The Honorable David Pryor
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Post Office and
Civil Service
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Dear Senator Pryor:
As requested, we are updating our 1988 report entitled Competition:
Information on Federally Funded Research and Development Centers
(GAO/NSIAD-88-116FS, May 24, 1988) for the Department of Defense's
(DOD)
11 federally funded research and development centers (FFRDC).
Specifically, this report describes the (1) funding and staff size of
the FFRDCs; (2) extent of subcontracted FFRDC work; (3) structure of
the parent organizations; (4) missions, core competencies, and
capabilities of the FFRDCs; (5) sponsors' criteria for defining core
work; and (6) sponsors' oversight mechanisms and responsibilities.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
FFRDCs were first established during World War II to meet specialized
or unique research and development needs that could not be readily
satisfied by government personnel, due to limits on federal salaries
and hiring, or by commercial contractors.\1 Additional and expanded
requirements for specialized services led to increases in the size
and number of FFRDCs to a peak of 74 FFRDCs in 1969. Today, 8
agencies, including DOD, fund 39 FFRDCs that are operated by
universities, nonprofit organizations, or industrial firms under
long-term contracts.\2
Legislation and federal procurement regulations permit agencies to
award these contracts noncompetitively.\3
Within DOD, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering is
responsible for developing overall policy for DOD's 11 FFRDCs. The
Director also determines the funding level for each FFRDC based on
the overall congressional ceiling on FFRDC funding and FFRDC
sponsors' funding requirements.\4 DOD categorizes each of its FFRDCs
as a (1) systems engineering and integration center, (2) studies and
analyses center, or (3) research and development laboratory. Table 1
shows DOD's 11 FFRDCs by category, parent organization, and primary
sponsor.
Table 1
DOD's FFRDCs, Parent Organizations, and
Primary Sponsors
Parent
FFRDC organization Primary sponsor
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Systems engineering and integration centers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace The Aerospace Air Force
Corporation
MITRE C\3I The MITRE Assistant
Corporation Secretary of
Defense (C\3I)
Studies and analyses centers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arroyo Center RAND Army
Project AIR FORCE RAND Air Force
National Defense Research RAND OSD
Institute
Center for Naval Analyses The CNA Navy
Corporation
IDA-Studies and Analyses/ IDA OSD
Operational
Test and Evaluation
Logistics Management Logistics OSD
Institute Management
Institute
Research and development laboratories
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Laboratory Massachusetts Air Force
Institute of
Technology
Software Engineering Carnegie Mellon Defense Advanced
Institute University Research Projects
Agency
IDA-Communications and IDA National Security
Computing Center\a Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C\3 I);
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); and Institute for Defense
Analyses (IDA).
\a IDA-Communications and Computing Center is sometimes referred to
as IDA-C\3 I.
The military services and defense agencies sponsor individual centers
and award and administer the 5-year contracts that are typically
negotiated noncompetitively after the agencies' continued need for
the FFRDC is established. Unlike commercial contractors, an FFRDC
accepts restrictions on its ability to manufacture products and
compete for other government or commercial business. These
restrictions are intended to (1) limit the potential for conflicts of
interest when FFRDC staff have access to sensitive government or
contractor data and (2) allow the center to form a special or
strategic relationship with its DOD sponsor.\5
The size, scope, and oversight of DOD's FFRDCs have been recurring
areas of concern to Congress, federal officials, and the private
sector throughout the past three decades. Since 1991, Congress
reduced the funding and approved personnel ceilings for the FFRDCs,
capped executives' salaries, and prohibited the creation of new
FFRDCs.
--------------------
\1 FFRDCs were previously called federal contract research centers
(FCRC).
\2 Of the total $74.4 billion spent on federal research in fiscal
year 1994, federal agencies spent about $6.3 billion, or 8.5 percent,
on FFRDCs.
\3 See the Competition in Contracting Act, 10 U.S.C. 2304, and the
Federal Acquisition Regulation.
\4 In fiscal year 1994, DOD spent about $824.6 million, or about 2.4
percent, of its total $34.7 billion budget for research, development,
test, and evaluation on its FFRDCs. DOD's FFRDCs also receive funds
from the procurement and operations and maintenance accounts.
\5 Role of Federally Funded R&D Centers in the Mission of the
Department of Defense, Defense Science Board Task Force, April 25,
1995, and Report of the DOD Internal Advisory Group on Federally
Funded Research and Development Centers, May 18, 1995, define the
characteristics of the special or strategic relationship as unique
competence and quality, close integration, objectivity and
independence, and long-term continuity.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Overall funding for DOD's FFRDCs, in constant 1995 dollars, increased
by about 23 percent, from almost $1.4 billion in fiscal year 1985 to
a peak of approximately $1.7 billion in fiscal year 1990, after which
Congress began reducing DOD's FFRDC funding.\6 Since fiscal year
1990, funding for DOD's FFRDCs has decreased by almost 26 percent to
about $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1995. However, over this 5-year
period, funding and members of technical staff (MTS)\7 for the three
categories of FFRDCs were not reduced proportionately; smaller
funding reductions were made to the studies and analyses centers (7
percent) in contrast to the systems engineering centers (24 percent)
and the laboratories (36 percent). Hence, the studies and analyses
centers remained closer to their 1990 levels. The majority of
resources--about 57 percent of funding and 62 percent of MTS--in
fiscal year 1995 were used in DOD's two systems engineering and
integration centers--Aerospace and MITRE. The average cost per MTS
for DOD's FFRDCs was about $181,000 in fiscal year 1995.
Subcontracting at DOD's FFRDCs, which primarily included engineering
and consulting assistance, totaled 7 percent, or about $83 million,
of FFRDC funding in fiscal year 1995.\8 Lincoln Laboratory had the
most subcontracts--approximately 29 percent or about $78.4 million of
its total expenditures in that year. It accounted for about 95
percent of all reported subcontracting.
Of the eight parent organizations that operate DOD's FFRDCs, six also
operate organizations outside the FFRDC structure. Two of the six
that operate other organizations are universities. Of the four
remaining, DOD's FFRDCs constitute the majority of their total
revenue. For these parent organizations, FFRDC funding ranged from
about 69 percent of total funding at RAND to 94 percent at The CNA
Corporation in fiscal year 1994.\9 The MITRE Corporation and RAND
also operate FFRDCs sponsored by federal agencies other than DOD.
Each of DOD's FFRDC's stated mission and core competencies are
focused on supporting the requirements of the sponsor. The mission
is expected to reflect the characteristics of the special or
strategic relationship between the DOD sponsor and the FFRDC. The
core competencies of the FFRDCs include a wide range of research and
technical areas that are related to their missions. According to
DOD, in pursuit of their missions, the FFRDCs maintain capabilities,
including the staff, tools, facilities, and research disciplines
required to effectively address diverse sponsor research needs with
consistently high-quality work.
DOD defines core work as that which is consistent with an FFRDC's
purpose, mission, capabilities, core competencies, and its special
relationship with the sponsor. According to DOD, to be consistent
with the special relationship, its FFRDCs are required to maintain
certain characteristics, including freedom from real or perceived
conflicts of interest, broad access to sensitive government and
proprietary information, and long-term continuity of knowledge on
issues and problems that are of enduring concern to the sponsors.
According to the DOD sponsoring agencies, oversight of an FFRDC is
conducted at several levels, which generally include the DOD primary
sponsor, an advisory group, and an executive agent as well as by
other groups such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defense
Contract Management Command, DOD Inspector General's office, and OSD.
For each FFRDC, the primary sponsor is responsible for providing
guidance on its needs and priorities; approving and overseeing
research; and continually reviewing the FFRDC's work to oversee its
quality, efficiency, and appropriateness. These reviews include at
least an annual review and a 5-year comprehensive review. The DOD
advisory group is expected to provide information to the FFRDC on the
sponsor's interests and priorities; provide guidance on the scope of
work; and review, evaluate, and approve the FFRDC's research and
technical program. The responsibilities of the DOD executive agent
generally include administering and providing guidance to the FFRDC
and serving as a liaison between the advisory group and the FFRDC.
--------------------
\6 The policy of the Office of the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering is to report funding data using actual obligations rather
than expenditures. Actual obligations represent the amount of
contracts awarded, services rendered, and similar transactions during
a given period that will require payment during the same or future
period. Expenditures result from the issuance of checks,
disbursement of cash, or electronic transfer of funds made to
liquidate a federal obligation. According to DOD officials, using
obligations allows you to refer to a fixed number, while expenditures
are constantly changing due to economic fluctuations, among other
things.
\7 MTS includes the direct professional labor of researchers,
mathematicians, analysts, economists, scientists, engineers, and
others who perform professional-level technical work. DOD defines an
average MTS as 1,810 hours of full-time employee or professional
effort; subcontracting is excluded. A DOD official told us that the
FFRDCs may not use this number to calculate MTS; therefore,
differences in determining MTS sometimes occur.
\8 According to DOD, subcontracting includes only the subcontracts or
purchase orders that the FFRDCs awarded to private companies for
services directly supporting official FFRDC work. It does not
include subcontracts for supplies or materials, administrative
support and janitorial services, or consultants paid on a daily
basis.
\9 Fiscal year 1994 funding data was not available for the Logistics
Management Institute's organization, since it was created at the end
of fiscal year 1994.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
DOD generally concurred with this report. (See app. VI.) DOD
provided some technical comments that have been incorporated into the
report where appropriate.
We also obtained comments from the FFRDCs and have incorporated their
comments where appropriate. In cases where the FFRDCs' information
differed from DOD's information, we contacted both parties to attempt
to resolve the discrepancies.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
We obtained the obligations and MTS data included in appendixes I and
II from DOD documents, reports, and interviews with officials from
the Office of the Director for Defense Research and Engineering, the
sponsoring agencies, and the FFRDCs. Subcontracting data was
provided by the FFRDCs. We did not independently verify the accuracy
of this information. According to a DOD official, since DOD has
rigidly managed its FFRDC funding within the ceilings provided by
Congress, the obligations data provided by DOD is accurate. The
official also said that, although the MTS data are estimates and
difficult to verify, he is confident that the FFRDCs have been
consistently applying the MTS definition provided by DOD to calculate
their MTS. When we identified apparent discrepancies in the data, we
cross-checked the information with DOD and the FFRDCs and were
generally able to resolve the differences. We reported DOD data in
the few cases when differences could not be resolved.
We ascertained the official purpose and mission of each FFRDC from
its sponsoring agreement or contract. The core competencies,
capabilities, criteria for assigning work, and oversight and
responsibilities were obtained from DOD documents, reports, and
interviews with officials from the Office of the Director for Defense
Research and Engineering, the sponsors, and the FFRDCs. We also
reviewed prior reports by the Defense Science Board, DOD's Inspector
General's office, Congressional Research Service, Office of
Technology Assessment, and our office. We conducted our review
between April and November 1995.
Appendix I provides information on the funding, staff size, and
extent of subcontracting at DOD's FFRDCs, and appendix II includes
information on the parent organizations of the FFRDCs. Appendixes
III through V include general information on each of the FFRDCs by
category, and appendix VI contains comments from DOD. A list of
related FFRDC reports is provided at the end of this report.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we
plan no further distribution until 30 days after its issue date. At
that time, we will send copies of this report to the Chairmen and
Ranking Minority Members, Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the Secretary of
Defense; and the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy. Copies will also be available to others on request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-4587 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report
were Maria Boyreau, Erin Slonaker Noel, and Charles W. Thompson.
Sincerely yours,
David E. Cooper
Associate Director
Defense Acquisitions Issues
INFORMATION ON THE FUNDING, STAFF
SIZE, AND EXTENT OF SUBCONTRACTING
AT DOD'S FFRDCS
=========================================================== Appendix I
FUNDING AND STAFF SIZE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
From fiscal year 1985 to 1991, overall funding, in constant 1995
dollars, for the Department of Defense's (DOD) federally funded
research and development centers (FFRDC) increased by about 23
percent. After this growth period, Congress began to legislate
reductions. From a peak of almost $1.7 billion in fiscal year 1990,
funding decreased approximately
26 percent to about $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1995. Figure I.1
shows the obligations of DOD's FFRDCs from fiscal year 1985 to 1995.
Figure I.1: Obligations for
DOD's FFRDCs in Constant 1995
Dollars (fiscal years 1985-95)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: DOD.
From the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, DOD's FFRDCs experienced a
growth in members of technical staff (MTS). In conjunction with
congressional reductions in DOD's FFRDC funding, in fiscal years
1991-95, total MTS were reduced by about 18 percent from 7,833 to
6,446 (see fig. I.2).
Figure I.2: MTS for DOD's
FFRDCs (fiscal years 1991-95)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: MTS data was available for fiscal years 1985-95; however, due
to a change in the definition for MTS in fiscal year 1991, data for
fiscal years 1985-90 is not comparable to more recent data and is not
presented.
Source: DOD.
In fiscal year 1991, Congress began to reduce funding for DOD's
FFRDCs. During fiscal years 1990-95, funding for DOD's studies and
analyses centers was reduced 7 percent versus a reduction of 24
percent and 36 percent for systems engineering and laboratory
centers, respectively. Figure I.3 shows obligations by FFRDC
categories for fiscal year 1985 through 1995.
Figure I.3: Obligations by
FFRDC Category in Constant 1995
Dollars (fiscal years 1985-95)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: DOD.
Similar to funding trends for the different types of DOD FFRDCs,
reductions in MTS levels for fiscal years 1991-95 were greater for
the laboratories and systems engineering FFRDCs. The cumulative MTS
reduction for studies and analyses FFRDCs was approximately 9
percent, as compared to 24 percent and 18 percent for laboratories
and systems engineering FFRDCs, respectively. Figure I.4 shows MTS
by FFRDC categories for fiscal years 1991-95.
Figure I.4: MTS by FFRDC
Category (fiscal years 1991-95)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: DOD.
In fiscal year 1995, DOD spent about $1.25 billion for its FFRDCs and
used 6,446 MTS. The majority of funds (57 percent) and staff (62
percent) were used in DOD's two systems engineering and integration
FFRDCs--MITRE command, control, communications, and intelligence (C\3
I) and Aerospace (see fig. I.5).
Figure I.5: Percentage of
Obligations and MTS for Each
FFRDC Category (fiscal year
1995)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: DOD.
The three largest FFRDCs--including the two systems engineering and
integration FFRDCs and Lincoln Laboratory--used about 79 percent of
the funds and 78 percent of MTS in fiscal year 1995. Figures I.6 and
I.7 show the percentage of obligations and MTS allocated to MITRE C\3
I, Aerospace, Lincoln Laboratory, and the remaining FFRDCs,
respectively.
Figure I.6: Percentage of
Obligations for DOD's FFRDCs
(fiscal year 1995)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Other DOD FFRDCs include Arroyo Center, 1.6 percent; Project
AIR FORCE, 1.9 percent; National Defense Research Institute (NDRI),
1.5 percent; Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), 3.7 percent; Institute
for Defense Analyses-Studies and Analyses/Operational Test and
Evaluation (IDA), 5.5 percent; Logistics Management Institute (LMI),
2.3 percent; Software Engineering Institute (SEI), 2.3 percent; and
IDA-Communications and Computing Center, 2.6 percent.
Source: DOD.
Figure I.7: Percentage of MTS
for DOD's FFRDCs (fiscal year
1995)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Other DOD FFRDCs include Arroyo Center (1.5 percent), Project
AIR FORCE (1.7 percent), NDRI (1.6 percent), CNA (3.7 percent),
IDA-Studies and Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation (5.9
percent), LMI (2.6 percent), SEI (2.6 percent), and
IDA-Communications and Computing Center (2.2 percent).
Source: DOD.
The average cost per MTS for DOD's FFRDCs is about $181,000.\1 This
cost is somewhat higher for the research and development
laboratories--about $194,000.\2 The averages of the cost per MTS for
the systems engineering and integration centers and the studies and
analyses centers are approximately $176,000 and $186,000
respectively. Table I.1 provides DOD's fiscal year 1995 FFRDC
obligations less subcontracts, MTS, and cost per MTS.
Table I.1
Obligations, MTS, and Cost per MTS for
DOD's
FFRDCs (fiscal year 1995)
(Dollars in thousands)
Obligations
less Cost per MTS
subcontracti (obligations/
FFRDC ng MTS MTS)
-------------------------------- ------------ ---- ----------------
Aerospace $334,700 1,91 $175
0
MITRE C\3I 373,200 2,10 177
9
Arroyo Center 20,100 99 203
Project AIR FORCE 24,000 112 214
NDRI 19,100 105 182
CNA 46,200 238 194
IDA-Studies and Analyses/ 67,100 377 178
Operational Test and Evaluation
LMI 27,700 166 167
Lincoln Laboratory 196,500 1,01 193
8
SEI 28,700 170 169
IDA-Communications and Computing 32,600 142 229
Center
======================================================================
Total $1,169,900 6,44 $181
6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: DOD.
--------------------
\1 The cost per MTS is calculated by dividing the total obligations
for the FFRDC, minus subcontracts, by the total MTS. The cost per
MTS includes direct and indirect costs. According to a DOD official,
the comparability of the cost per MTS is affected by several factors,
such as the type and amount of materials and equipment procured by
the FFRDC.
\2 According to DOD, the cost per MTS for DOD FFRDC laboratories may
be higher due to the nature of work that FFRDC laboratories are
tasked to complete. For example, DOD FFRDC laboratories are required
to design prototypes that necessitate purchasing a great deal of
hardware. Hence, some laboratories, as compared to studies and
analyses centers, use a greater proportion of their DOD FFRDC ceiling
allocation to procure materials and equipment.
EXTENT OF SUBCONTRACTING
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
Data provided by the FFRDCs showed that the extent of subcontracting
by DOD's FFRDCs in fiscal year 1995 totaled about $83 million, or
about 7 percent of total fiscal year 1995 obligations. Table I.2
shows the extent of subcontracting reported by each FFRDC.
Table I.2
DOD FFRDCs' Obligations and Extent of
Subcontracting (fiscal year 1995)
(Dollars in thousands)
Subcontracts
as a
Total percentage of
FFRDC Obligations subcontracts obligations
------------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Aerospace $335,000 $288 0.09
MITRE C\3I 373,984 777 0.21
Arroyo Center 20,100 0 0
Project AIR FORCE 24,000 33 0.14
NDRI 19,355 221 1.14
CNA 46,642 443 0.95
IDA-Studies and Analyses/ 68,380 1,279 1.87
Operational Test and
Evaluation
LMI 28,972 1,295 4.47
Lincoln Laboratory 274,900 78,408 28.52
SEI 28,700 0\a 0
IDA-Communications and 32,593 6 0.02
Computing Center
======================================================================
Total $1,252,626 $82,750 6.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a SEI subcontracts fall within the categories of supplies and
consultants paid on a daily basis and therefore are not required to
be reported.
Source: DOD provided the data on obligations, and the FFRDCs
provided the data on subcontracts.
FFRDCS' PARENT ORGANIZATIONS
========================================================== Appendix II
Eight parent organizations currently operate DOD's 11 FFRDCs. Six of
these parents--MITRE, RAND, and CNA Corporations; Logistics
Management Institute; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and
Carnegie Mellon University--also operate one or more organizations
that are outside of the FFRDC structure. In addition, the MITRE
Corporation and RAND operate FFRDCs that are sponsored by the Federal
Aviation Administration and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, respectively. This appendix provides information on each
parent organization, including the DOD and non-DOD obligations and
MTS for each FFRDC it operates and the obligations and MTS for each
of its affiliated organizations.
THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
The Aerospace Corporation is a private, nonprofit corporation
chartered in 1960 that has entered into a sponsoring agreement with
the Air Force for the operation of the Aerospace FFRDC. The Board of
Trustees oversees all functions of The Aerospace Corporation--DOD
FFRDC activities account for about 95 percent of the corporation's
work. The remainder of its work deals with space or space-related
technical matters for non-DOD agencies, such as the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. The total funding for
Aerospace's FFRDC was $381 million and MTS was 2,186 for fiscal year
1994. This total funding includes $365.5 million of DOD obligations
and 2,090 MTS.
THE MITRE CORPORATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
The MITRE Corporation was incorporated in 1958 as a private,
nonprofit, public service organization. Prior to 1996, the
corporation operated a DOD-sponsored FFRDC--MITRE C\3 I --and an
FFRDC sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration--the Center
for Advanced Aviation System Development.\1 The MITRE Corporation
also operated two organizations that were outside of the FFRDC
structure, the Center for Environment Resources and Space and the
Center for Information Systems. These non-FFRDC organizations
received most of their funding from federal agencies, including DOD,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of
Justice, and the General Services Administration. Table II.1
provides fiscal year 1994 funding and MTS information for the FFRDCs
and non-FFRDCs operated by the MITRE Corporation.
Table II.1
Funding and MTS for the MITRE
Corporation's FFRDCs and Non-FFRDC
Organizations (fiscal year 1994)
(Dollars in millions)
Percentage Percentage
Fundin of total of total
Organization g funding MTS MTS\a
------------------------------ ------ ---------- ------ ----------
MITRE C\3I $437\b 74 2,569\ 75
b
Center for Advanced Aviation 90 15 502 15
System Development
Center for Information Systems 63 11 374 11
and Center for Environment
Resources and Space
======================================================================
Total $590 100 3,445 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages do not add due to rounding.
\b This figure includes $402.9 million of DOD obligations and 2,319
MTS.
Source: DOD.
--------------------
\1 In early 1996, the MITRE Corporation spun off a nonprofit
company--Mitretek Systems--to perform all of its non-FFRDC work.
RAND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3
RAND is a private, nonprofit corporation headquartered in California
that was created in 1948 to promote scientific, educational, and
charitable activities for the public welfare and security. RAND has
contracts to operate four FFRDCs, three of which are studies and
analyses centers sponsored by DOD--the Arroyo Center, Project AIR
FORCE, and NDRI. RAND's fourth FFRDC, the Critical Technologies
Institute, is administered by the National Science Foundation on
behalf of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. RAND also
operates five organizations outside of the FFRDC structure: the
National Security Research Division, Domestic Research Division,
Planning and Special Programs, Center for Russian and Eurasian
Studies, and RAND Graduate School. These non-FFRDC organizations
receive funding from the federal and state governments, private
foundations, and the United Nations, among others. Table II.2
provides funding and MTS information for RAND's FFRDCs and
organizations operated outside the FFRDC structure.
Table II.2
Funding and MTS for RAND's FFRDCs and
Non-FFRDC Organizations (fiscal year
1994)
(Dollars in millions)
Percentage Percentage
Fundin of total of total
Organization g funding MTS MTS\a
------------------------------ ------ ---------- ------ ----------
Arroyo Center $20\b 20 99\b 19
Project AIR FORCE 24\b 24 117\b 22
NDRI 25\b 25 122\b 23
Critical Technologies 3 3 25 5
Institute
National Security Research 28 28 168 32
Division, Domestic Research
Division, and others
======================================================================
Total $100 100 531 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages do not add due to rounding.
\b This figure includes only DOD obligations; the FFRDC did not
receive any non-DOD obligations during fiscal year 1994.
Source: DOD.
THE CNA CORPORATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4
The CNA FFRDC was created in 1961 when several elements of the Navy's
civilian analytical support community were brought together under the
management of the Franklin Institute. Between 1961 and 1990, the
FFRDC operated under the umbrella of university and nonprofit
institutions, including the University of Rochester and the Hudson
Institute. In 1990, The CNA Corporation became an independent
organization and entered into a contractual agreement to operate an
FFRDC with the Navy. The CNA Corporation operates one FFRDC that is
sponsored by the Navy as well as an organization outside the FFRDC
structure--the Institute for Public Research. The Institute conducts
work for federal, state, and local governments as well as nonprofit
corporations, foundations, and educational institutions. Table II.3
provides funding and MTS information for The CNA Corporation's FFRDC
and organization operated outside the FFRDC structure.
Table II.3
Funding and MTS for The CNA
Corporation's FFRDC and Non-FFRDC
Organization (fiscal year 1994)
(Dollars in millions)
Percentage Percentage
Fundin of total of total
Organization g funding MTS MTS
------------------------------ ------ ---------- ------ ----------
CNA $49\a 94 249\a 97
Institute for Public Research 3 6 7 3
======================================================================
Total $52 100 256 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This figure includes only DOD obligations; the FFRDC did not
receive any non-DOD obligations during fiscal year 1994.
Source: DOD.
INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5
At the request of the Secretary of Defense, IDA was created as an
independent, nonprofit corporation in 1956. IDA has contracts to
operate two DOD-sponsored FFRDCs, the Studies and
Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation Center and the
Communications and Computing Center, a research and development
laboratory. Table II.4 provides funding and MTS information for
IDA's FFRDCs.
Table II.4
Funding and MTS for IDA's FFRDCs (fiscal
year 1994)
(Dollars in millions)
Percentage Percentage
Fundin of total of total
Organization g funding MTS MTS
------------------------------ ------ ---------- ------ ----------
IDA-Studies and Analyses/ $73\a 68 414\a 74
Operational Test and
Evaluation
IDA-Communications and 34\b 32 149\b 26
Computing Center
======================================================================
Total $107 100 563 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This figure includes $72 million in DOD obligations and 405 MTS.
\b This figure includes only DOD obligations; the FFRDC did not
receive any non-DOD obligations during fiscal year 1994.
Source: DOD.
LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:6
LMI was created in 1961 as a private, nonprofit corporation whose
purpose is to promote national security and the public interest. LMI
has operated a DOD-sponsored FFRDC since 1985. The total funding for
LMI's FFRDC was $36.3 million and MTS was 207 for fiscal year 1994.
This total funding includes $29.7 million of DOD obligations and 171
MTS. At the end of fiscal year 1994, LMI created an organization
outside of the FFRDC structure, the Center for Public Administration.
LMI reported no funding for the Center in fiscal year 1994.
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:7
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has operated a
DOD-sponsored FFRDC--Lincoln Laboratory--since 1951. Lincoln
Laboratory is only one of the Institute's operations, and the
Laboratory's funding does not constitute the majority of the
Institute's total funding.\2 The total funding for Lincoln Laboratory
was $316.5 million and MTS was 1,243 for fiscal year 1994. This
total funding includes $268.1 million of DOD obligations and 1,052
MTS.
--------------------
\2 Total funding is not provided for the universities, because the
FFRDCs are separate arms of the universities and, as opposed to
corporate-sponsored FFRDCs, have a different structural relationship
with the FFRDCs.
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:8
Carnegie Mellon University operates a DOD-sponsored FFRDC--SEI--which
is a research and development laboratory that was created in 1984.
SEI is only one of the university's operations, and SEI's funding
does not represent the majority of the university's total funding.
The total funding for SEI was $32.7 million and MTS was 193 for
fiscal year 1994. This total funding includes $30.5 million of DOD
obligations and 182 MTS.
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION CENTERS
========================================================= Appendix III
DOD has two FFRDCs that are classified as systems engineering and
integration centers--Aerospace and MITRE C\3 I. These centers were
created to provide long-term technical and engineering support that
cannot be met by existing in-house or contractor resources to ensure
that systems will meet operational requirements. The centers are
expected to assist with the creation and choice of system concepts
and architectures, specification of technical system and subsystem
requirements and interfaces, development and acquisition of system
hardware and software, tests and verification of performance, and
integration of new capabilities and continuous improvement of system
operation and logistics. The centers are also expected to assist
their sponsors in technically formulating, initiating, and evaluating
programs and activities undertaken by for-profit firms.
AEROSPACE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1
The Aerospace FFRDC was created to provide scientific and engineering
support involving launch, space, and related ground support systems;
support scientific activities and projects; provide space system
architecture and planning functions; perform research, development,
and advisory services; and provide general systems engineering,
engineering support, and systems integration support to the U.S.
government. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
is the primary sponsor for the Aerospace FFRDC. Day-to-day
management responsibilities are delegated to the Air Force Materiel
Command's Space and Missile Systems Center, which is the executive
agent and primary user of the Aerospace FFRDC. Table III.1 provides
general information regarding Aerospace.
Table III.1
General Information on Aerospace
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Assist the Air Force in applying the resources of modern
science and technology to achieve continuing advances in
military space and space-related systems that are basic to
national security.
Provide the Air Force's space efforts with an organization
that is objective, technically competent, and characterized
by long-term continuity.
Provide a link between the U.S. government and U.S.
scientific and industrial organizations with a capability
and interest in the space field.
Help to ensure that the technical resources of the nation
are properly applied and that the potential advances in the
space field are realized in the shortest time possible.
Support the U.S. government through technical review,
monitoring, and steering of industry efforts.
Ensure that technical deficiencies and weaknesses are
isolated and that the impact of new data and developments is
properly assessed.
Core competencies Launch certification.
Systems of systems engineering.
Systems development and acquisition.
Process implementation.
Technology application.
Capabilities Assist with the creation of and choice of space system
concepts and architectures; specification of technical space
systems and subsystem requirements and interfaces;
development and acquisition of space systems hardware and
software; testing and verification of performance;
integration of new capabilities and continuous improvement
of system operations and logistics; and the technical
formulation, initiation, and evaluation of space programs
and activities of commercial firms supporting the Air Force
and national security space community.
Provide technical review, monitoring, and steering of
industry efforts after a development program is initiated.
Ensure that technical deficiencies and weaknesses are
isolated and that the impact of new data and developments
are properly assessed and appropriate changes are made.
Maintain a workforce with the highest technical capability
in disciplines relevant to national security space systems.
Provide two levels of systems engineering for space systems,
including the integration of subsystems and system segments
into complete systems and the integration of each system
into the overall national security space system.
Criteria for Consistent with Aerospace's mission.
defining core work
Consistent with core capabilities and competencies.
Consistent with special relationship:
Objective and high-quality work on subjects integral to the
Air Force's mission.
Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest.
Broad access to DOD planning information, intelligence, and
industry proprietary information.
Comprehensive knowledge of Air Force needs and problems.
Long-term continuity of knowledge of Air Force issues.
Technical link between the Air Force space program and
scientific and industrial organizations worldwide.
Oversight and Primary sponsor
responsibilities
Sets broad program direction.
Oversees ongoing development programs.
Reviews annual work plans and manpower allocations.
Periodically assesses efficiency and effectiveness.
Evaluates the work.
Resolves intraprogram conflicts.
Validates the appropriateness of assigning work to the
FFRDC.
Executive agent
Manages daily activities.
Chief Engineer's Office
Reviews, critiques, and summarizes the assessments of
Aerospace's efficiency and effectiveness and formally
presents this information to the commander.
Users
Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Aerospace,
including the FFRDC's ability to maintain its objectivity,
independence, quick response capability, and currency in its
field of expertise.
Contracting officers
Reviews the appropriateness of work on their contracts and
compliance with applicable regulations and funding limits.
Board of Trustees
Oversees all functions of the corporation and its FFRDC
activities.
Considers corporation's business base, corporate structure,
and executive leadership.
Reviews Aerospace performance, including technical,
financial, personnel, and security issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MITRE C\3 I
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2
MITRE C\3 I was created to serve as a link between the government and
the science and engineering communities and provide a sound technical
basis for the conception, analysis, selection, design, and evaluation
of command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C\4
I) systems. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (C\3 I) is the
primary sponsor of MITRE C\3 I. The secondary sponsors are the Air
Force Electronic Systems Center and the Army
Communications-Electronics Command. Table III.2 provides general
information regarding MITRE C\3 I.
Table III.2
General Information on MITRE C\3I
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Provide C\4I general systems engineering, engineering
support, and systems integration support to the DOD users.
Assist sponsors in applying science and technology to the
continuing advancement of military electronic systems.
Use all pertinent resources to ensure the accomplishment of
known military requirements.
Provide technical assessment on the requirements as improved
capabilities are projected.
Perform work objectively with state-of-the-art technical
knowledge and extensive familiarity with military
requirements.
Provide continuity of experience in developing successive
systems.
Core competencies Systems of systems engineering.
Systems development and acquisition.
Process implementation.
Technology application.
Architectures and interoperability.
Capabilities Assist with the creation and choice of C\4I systems concepts
and architectures, specification of technical systems and
subsystem requirements and interfaces; development and
acquisition of system hardware and software; testing and
verification of system performance; integration of new
capabilities; continuous improvement of systems operations
and logistics; and technical formulation, initiation, and
evaluation of programs and activities of commercial firms
supporting DOD.
Provide technical review, monitoring, and steering of
industry efforts after a system development program is
initiated.
Maintain a workforce with the highest technical capability
and integrity.
Maintain a thorough understanding of the operational role
played by the overall C\4I systems in wartime and peacetime.
Provide on-site support to operational commanders worldwide
and during actual demonstrations, tests, and exercises.
Provide a quick, in-depth response.
Provide unique, high-quality, technical, international
perspectives in the mission area.
Criteria for Consistent with MITRE C\3I's purpose, mission, and
defining core work capabilities.
Consistent with core competencies.
Consistent with special relationship:
High-quality, state-of-the-art work.
Freedom from bias and real or perceived conflicts of
interest.
Broad access to sensitive government information to ensure
interoperability, detailed government budget plans, and
proprietary information to support future full and open
competition with industry.
Comprehensive knowledge.
Long-term continuity of effort ensuring technical
consistency of design and a stable development strategy for
the C\3I systems being developed within DOD.
Oversight and Primary sponsor
responsibilities
Implements and monitors provisions in applicable regulations
and legislation for using FFRDCs.
Provides management oversight and direction, technical
review, and policy guidance.
Defines its mission, overall priorities, and core work.
Allocates dollar ceilings to all users.
Serves as the focal point for DOD regarding funding and
dollar ceiling issues.
Provides guidance to the secondary users on the use of the
FFRDC and other policy matters.
Assesses and reviews the appropriateness of each project.
Aligns overall work program based on assessments of DOD-
wide priorities.
Oversees the spring reviews, comprehensive reviews, and
corporate activities that affect the FFRDC.
Secondary sponsor
Negotiates and administers contracts and manages contracting
relationship with MITRE C\3I.
Oversees respective work programs.
Performs annual spring reviews.
Serves as focal point to prioritize the users' needs.
Reviews requests for support to determine continuing need
for the FFRDC.
Ensures conformance with regulations.
Analyzes customer satisfaction and provides assessment to
primary and other secondary sponsors, as well as MITRE
management.
Joint Users Committee\a
Reviews MITRE C\3I work, the allocation of dollar ceilings,
the quality of work, major accomplishments of the FFRDC
during the previous year, and problems identified by the
sponsors and/or major users.
Contracting officers
Review the appropriateness of work on their contracts,
compliance with applicable regulations, and efficiency and
cost-effectiveness of work programs.
Project officers
Determine the need for MITRE C\3I support.
Define objectives of individual projects.
Provide evaluations of project performance to MITRE project
leaders and management and sponsor managers.
Receive monthly progress reports, conduct ad hoc project
reviews, and submit an annual standardized report evaluating
the FFRDC's quality and efficiency.
Major users
Conduct periodic management reviews.\b
Provide a sole-source certification for each project that is
signed by a general officer or senior executive official.
Focal points of major users
Oversee the appropriateness of MITRE's support.
Prioritize dollar ceiling allocations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Joint Users Committee includes senior officials of the primary
and secondary sponsors, services, defense agencies, and Joint Staff
that receive technical support from the FFRDC.
\b Management reviews are conducted by panels of general officers
and/or senior executive officials.
STUDIES AND ANALYSES CENTERS
========================================================== Appendix IV
DOD has six FFRDCs that are classified as studies and analyses
centers--the Arroyo Center, Project AIR FORCE, NDRI, CNA, IDA-Studies
and Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation, and LMI. These centers
were created to provide objective analyses and advise on core areas
important to their sponsors in support of policy development,
decision-making, alternative approaches, and new ideas on major
defense issues.
ARROYO CENTER
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1
At the request of the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Arroyo Center,
an existing FFRDC, was moved to RAND in 1985. The center was created
to provide the Army with objective and independent analyses of major
policies, with an emphasis on mid- to long-term issues. The Arroyo
Center's stated purpose is to maintain expertise and institutional
memory about Army operations and policy; provide a balanced,
arms-length perspective on controversial issues; and provide
short-term assistance on urgent issues relevant to senior Army
officials. The Department of the Army is the primary sponsor of the
center. Table IV.1 provides general information regarding the Arroyo
Center.
Table IV.1
General Information on the Arroyo Center
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Provide expert and interdisciplinary analytical research
capabilities covering a broad range of relevant specialties.
Provide objective, independent analyses emphasizing mid-and
long-term issues.
Provide advice to the Army on alternative programs and
courses of action without real or perceived conflicts of
interest.
Provide a quick response capability in area of expertise.
Core competencies Force development and technology.
Manpower and training.
Military logistics.
Strategy and doctrine.
Capabilities Provide in-depth knowledge of Army and DOD systems,
technologies, operations, strategies, and resources.
Cover a broad spectrum of issues, including alternative
strategies and structures for a post-Cold War army.
Maintain a high-quality, interdisciplinary research staff
that combines long-standing experience with current
knowledge.
Draw on a broad range of facilities and current analytic
tools, such as models, simulations, and databases, that are
provided by RAND.
Provide independent analyses that are free from conflicts of
interest.
Enforce a rigorous review of project results to ensure that
the analyses and conclusions are thorough and sound.
Criteria for Consistent with Arroyo's purpose, mission, and capabilities.
defining core work
Consistent with core competencies.
Consistent with special relationship:
Effective performance of objective, high-quality work on
subjects integral to the mission and operations of the
sponsors.
Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest caused
by service, commercial, or other involvement.
Broad access to proprietary, competition-sensitive, or no-
contract data.
Comprehensive knowledge of sponsors' needs, problems, and
issues.
Long-term continuity of effort on issues and problems of
enduring concern, including both maintaining corporate
memory for sponsors when appropriate and providing a quick
response as needed in areas of established expertise.
Responsiveness to emerging and evolving needs of sponsors.
Oversight and Primary sponsor
responsibilities
Exercises broad oversight over the center and conducts a
comprehensive review to determine the continuing need for
the FFRDC.
Arroyo Center Policy Committee\a
Provides policy guidance to the Arroyo Center's management
and meets semiannually to review, evaluate, and approve the
annual research program.
Executive agent\b
Chairs pre-committee meetings semiannually and provides an
annual update to the center's management.
Offers guidance and emphasis on development of the research
agenda.
Maintains personal interaction with committee members.
Facilitates the center's contacts with senior Army leaders.
Develops, coordinates, and justifies the center's annual
budget.
Conducts the annual survey, which includes a review of the
center's efforts regarding quality, utility, value, cost,
and timeliness.
Project sponsors\c
Oversee individual research projects.
Board of Trustees
Oversees operation of the center as specified in RAND's
charter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Arroyo Center Policy Committee is co-chaired by the Vice Chief
of Staff of the Army and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Research, Development, and Acquisition).
\b The Director for Program Analysis and Evaluation serves as the
executive agent for the Arroyo Center.
\c A project sponsor must be a general officer or official in the
Senior Executive Service.
PROJECT AIR FORCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2
Project AIR FORCE was established by the Air Force (then the Army Air
Forces) at Douglas Aircraft in 1946.\1 It was transferred to RAND in
1948. The purpose of the FFRDC is to provide studies, analyses, and
research on the broad subject of aerospace power, with the objective
of recommending to the Air Force preferred methods, techniques, and
instrumentalities for the development and deployment of aerospace
power. To carry out its mission, Project AIR FORCE must have an Air
Force-wide perspective and ability to deal with cross-cutting,
multidisciplinary problems; a responsibility to follow problems
across organizational boundaries; a focus on future Air Force needs
and effectiveness; access to senior Air Force leadership and
planning; and an institutional memory. The Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force (Acquisition) is the primary sponsor of the center.
Table IV.2 provides general information on Project AIR FORCE.
Table IV.2
General Information on Project AIR FORCE
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Conduct a continuous interrelated program of objective
analyses on major cross-cutting policy and management issues
of enduring concern to the Air Force.
Maintain expertise on, and an institutional memory about,
Air Force operations and policy.
Provide timely, short-term assistance on urgent problems
consistent with the project's demonstrated expertise.
Explore long-term issues and questions that will become
vital concerns in the future.
Core competencies Strategy and doctrine.
Force development and application.
Resource management.
Capabilities Based on its institutional memory, provide a broad
understanding of the major issues facing the Air Force,
including the most pressing concerns identified by Air Force
leaders.
Provide an integrated, interdisciplinary research style and
approach policy issues from multiple perspectives, which
results in an understanding of the shifting boundaries and
connections among policy areas.
Draw on a broad range of research disciplines, facilities,
and current analytic tools, such as models, simulations, and
databases, that are provided by RAND.
Provide trusted advice in response to urgent policy
questions.
Criteria for Consistent with Project AIR FORCE's mission, purpose, and
defining core work capabilities.
Consistent with core competencies.
Consistent with special relationship:
Objective, high-quality research on subjects integral to
the mission of the Air Force.
Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest.
Comprehensive knowledge of sponsors' needs and operations.
Long-term continuity of effort on Air Force and aerospace
power issues.
Oversight and Air Force Advisory Group\a
responsibilities
Administers Project AIR FORCE.
Establishes overall objectives for the project.
Provides information on Air Force needs, interests, and
priorities to permit the project to formulate the annual
research program.
Provides broad supervisory and policy guidance to enable
RAND and the project's management to conduct the research
program.
Reviews and approves the annual research program.
Empowers the project sponsors to approve and oversee the
individual project research.
Periodically evaluates, with RAND management, the total
current and planned research program.
Establishes the policy for conducting direct research
assistance and concept formulation.
Serves as the final corporate-level mechanism for providing
monitoring and oversight.
Executive agent\b
Administers Project AIR FORCE, as approved by the advisory
group.
Ensures FFRDC compliance with DOD and federal FFRDC policy.
Evaluates and presents to the advisory group an annual
assessment of individual research projects and the overall
program.
Establishes and executes policies for processing new
research proposals and distributing the project's
publications.
Consolidates and provides to the advisory group proposed
guidance for the future direction of the project's research
program.
Acts as the Air Force focal point for contact with the
project.
Recommends and assists in developing the project's budgets,
work statements, and procurement actions.
Furnishes information on Project AIR FORCE research to the
Air Force, DOD, and other government agencies.
Monitors direct assistance requests.
Project sponsors\c
Furnish guidance on Air Force needs and priorities.
Approve research objectives.
Oversee the research.
Ensure access to information necessary to conduct the
research.
Periodically review the status of the research under their
cognizance.
Make recommendations on the future direction of the
research.
Inform the advisory group of progress and results.
Appoint a project focal point and action officers to
facilitate the administration of the project.
Board of Trustees
Oversees the operation of the FFRDC as specified in RAND's
charter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Air Force Advisory Group is chaired by the Air Force Vice
Chief of Staff and includes senior representatives from the Air Force
Secretariat and Air Staff.
\b The Director of Plans is the executive agent of the advisory
group.
\c An Air Force sponsor is a general officer or senior executive
equivalent from Air Force headquarters or a major command. Each
sponsor formulates and supports a particular research project.
--------------------
\1 Project AIR FORCE was originally known as Project RAND. The FFRDC
was renamed in 1976.
NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH
INSTITUTE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3
NDRI was established in 1984 to consolidate into a single FFRDC
RAND's research efforts in support of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD), the Joint Staff, and the defense agencies. NDRI's
purpose is to help meet the long-term analytical needs of its
sponsors. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition
and Technology) is the primary sponsor of NDRI. Table IV.3 provides
general information regarding NDRI.
Table IV.3
General Information on NDRI
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Broadly support the analytical requirements of the sponsor.
Provide independent, objective findings and policy advice
based on research and analyses of national security
problems.
Conduct a continuous, integrated research program focused on
the high-priority, mid-to long-term policy research and
analysis needs of the sponsor, including enduring issues
that cut across organizational boundaries.
Maintain expertise on important issues of interest to the
sponsor and a thorough understanding of the sponsor's needs.
Further develop and institutionalize capabilities for
analysis and integration of defense issues.
Perform both in-depth and quick response policy analyses.
Core competencies International policy and defense strategy.
Forces and resources policy.
Technology and acquisition policy.
Research integration.
Capabilities Addresses diverse sponsor needs with consistently high
quality.
Maintains a high-quality, multidisciplined staff with in-
depth, long-standing experience in all areas of defense
policy as well as many areas of nondefense policy.
Draws on a broad range of facilities and current analytic
tools, such as models, simulations, and databases, that
permit efficient and reliable analyses of complex policy
questions.
Provides a proven internal review process.
Criteria for Consistent with NDRI's mission and purpose.
defining core work
Require RAND's research capability and consistent with
NDRI's core competencies.
Consistent with special relationship:
Independence and objectivity.
Absence of conflicts of interest to allow access to
sensitive government or proprietary information.
Familiarity with sponsor mission, responsibilities, and
policy-analytical needs and close working relationship.
Long-term continuity of the research program.
Adaptability to rapidly changing research needs.
Flexibility and quick response capability.
Dedication to the public interest.
Oversight and Primary sponsor
responsibilities
Ensures continuity in level of support to FFRDC, consistent
with the agency's need for the FFRDC and the sponsoring
agreement regulations and contingent on available funding.
Ensures that NDRI is consistent with its mission.
Ensures that individual sponsors use NDRI work
appropriately.
Determines that costs of services offered by NDRI are
reasonable and that work produced is of high quality.
Reviews final outcome of comprehensive review.
Designates an executive agent to administer NDRI.
NDRI Advisory Board\a
Establishes multiyear objectives and guidelines on overall
level of effort and recommends a ceiling when required.
Provides information on DOD needs, interests, and
priorities, especially on cross-cutting issues.
Reviews, revises, and approves NDRI's long-term research
plan and annual research plan, ensuring they are consistent
with the mission, scope, and objectives of the FFRDC.
Reviews the annual research program proposed jointly by the
sponsor community and RAND; makes adjustments when required
by ceiling constraints or in the interest of balance.
Identifies funding from the OSD studies budget and other
sources.
Semiannually evaluates with RAND management the current
research effort and suggests correction as necessary.
Reviews the annual assessments of individual research
projects and the overall NDRI program and coordinates with
RAND to resolve problems.
Executive agent and project sponsor
Exercise joint responsibility for determining that a
proposed research project is consistent with NDRI's mission,
is within the general scope of work, and meets the criteria
for being assigned to an FFRDC.
Provide day-to-day management and oversight through the
FFRDC program management office and contracting officer's
representative.
Designate membership and chair the NDRI Advisory Board.
Contracting officer's representative
Administers NDRI for the government consistent with primary
sponsor initiatives.
Ensures compliance with DOD and FFRDC policy.
Administers procurement actions for NDRI research efforts.
Acts as the DOD focal point for contact with NDRI.
Board of Trustees
Oversees the operation of the FFRDC as specified in RAND's
charter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The NDRI Advisory Board is chaired by the Director, Acquisition
Program Integration, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition and Technology), and includes representatives from OSD,
Joint Staff, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
THE CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:4
The CNA FFRDC was created in 1961 to provide a unique ability to
combine technical analytical capability with current operational
experience to address the Navy requirements for the analyses of major
issues. Table IV.4 provides general information on the CNA FFRDC.
Table IV.4
General Information on CNA
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Provide the Navy with an independent, authoritative source
of applied research and analyses that is focused on the
major present and future needs and issues of the Navy and
Marine Corps.
Offer analytical support in evaluation of operational
capabilities, optimum use of resources, analyses of fleet or
field exercises, and development and evaluation of tactics.
Core competencies Operations analyses.
System requirements and acquisition.
Resource analyses.
Program planning.
Policy, strategy, and doctrine.
Capabilities Combines technical analytical capability with current
operational experience to address Navy requirements for
analyses of major issues.
Maintains a well-educated, multidisciplined staff with
experience in Navy issues, operational experience gained
through hands-on exposure to Navy fleets, and a perspective
on the policy-making environment.
Produces high-quality, analytically rigorous, and
comprehensive analyses free from bias or partisanship.
Provides a quick response to meet urgent or immediate
requirements.
Assists the Navy in bringing definition to unstructured
problems and issues and identifies the best method and
analytical approach for assessing these problems.
Provides on-site, timely, and objective analyses to
operational commanders worldwide.
Criteria for Consistent with CNA's mission, purpose, and capabilities.
defining core work
Consistent with core competencies.
Consistent with special relationship:
Independent and objective.
Access to sensitive government and proprietary information.
Long-term relationship.
Broad corporate knowledge.
Could not be performed as effectively by another contractor.
Oversight and CNA Policy Council
responsibilities
Annually reviews the quality of CNA's performance, budget,
and operating procedures, proposed studies, and relationship
with the Navy.
Provides policy guidance to CNA.
Considers other matters proposed by any member.
Product area managers
Review, approve, and coordinate CNA work that falls within
their responsibilities.
Scientific officer\a
Monitors all CNA work done for the Department of the Navy
and non-Navy sponsors.
Contracting officer
Reviews proposed CNA research projects for appropriateness.
Contracting officer's technical representative\b
Provides final determination of whether a proposed research
project is appropriate for CNA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The scientific officer is the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
(Resources, Warfare Requirements, and Assessments).
\b The contracting officer's technical representative is the Director
of the Assessment Division.
IDA-STUDIES AND
ANALYSES/OPERATIONAL TEST AND
EVALUATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:5
As part of IDA, the Studies and Analyses/Operational Test and
Evaluation FFRDC was created to promote the national security, public
welfare, and advancement of scientific learning by performing
analyses, evaluations, and reports on matters of interest to the U.S.
government. OSD is the primary sponsor; secondary sponsors include
the Joint Staff, Unified and Specified Commands, and defense
agencies. Table IV.5 provides general information on IDA-Studies and
Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation.
Table IV.5
General Information on IDA-Studies and
Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Provide studies, analyses, computer software prototypes,
simulations, analytical models, and other technical and
analytical support useful for policy, program planning, and
management by its sponsors.
Maintain high-quality staff and technical capabilities
across a broad range of issues of concern to its sponsors,
consistent with its charter.
Maintain access to sensitive government and proprietary data
and facilities.
Core competencies Systems evaluations.
Technology assessments.
Force and strategy assessments.
Resource and support analyses.
Capabilities Provides high-quality, timely analyses that are produced in
an environment that encourages independent thinking and
objective results.
Maintains a high-quality, interdisciplinary research staff
that combines long-standing experience with current
knowledge.
Draws on a broad range of current analytic tools, such as
models, simulations, and databases.
Enforces a rigorous review of project results to ensure that
the analyses and conclusions are thorough and sound.
Maintains technical direction, oversight, and responsibility
for its work.
Criteria for Consistent with IDA's mission, purpose, and capabilities.
defining core work
Consistent with core competencies.
Consistent with special relationship:
Objective, high-quality work on subjects integral to the
mission and operations of sponsors.
Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest caused
by service, commercial, or other involvement.
Broad access to sensitive government and proprietary
information.
Comprehensive knowledge of sponsor needs, problems, and
issues.
Long-term continuity of knowledge on issues and problems of
enduring concern, including maintaining corporate memory for
sponsors and providing a quick response when appropriate in
areas of established expertise.
Responsive to emerging and evolving needs of sponsors.
Oversight and Primary sponsor
responsibilities
Ensures that the IDA program deals with and adheres to
issues that the sponsors collectively believe are important
and in the national interest to resolve.
Ensures that the work is within the scope of IDA's charter.
IDA Advisory Group\a
Periodically evaluates IDA's overall research effort.
Provides information on the general interest and priorities
of sponsors.
Offers guidance on the general scope of IDA's work.
Executive agent
Administers IDA work for OSD and the Joint Staff and their
components.
Administers IDA work done for defense agencies at the
agencies' request.
Contracting officer
Reviews contract tasks for appropriateness and funding
limits.
Contracting officer's representative
Reviews all task orders for appropriateness and compliance
with the DOD Management Plan.
Administrative contracting officer
Coordinates the oversight of all of the FFRDC's business
operations.
Reviews and approves all major subcontracting transactions.
Board of Trustees
Oversees IDA's operation as specified in the certificate of
incorporation with the State of Delaware.
Exercises quality control.
IDA management
Review and direct all of the FFRDC's operations.
Ensure compliance with all aspects of the FFRDC's charter
and sponsoring agreement.
Exercise day-to-day control of staff activities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a IDA's Advisory Group is chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology or his designee, and the members of
the group include the heads of the principal offices that sponsor
work at IDA.
LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:6
LMI's FFRDC was created in 1984 to help meet the short- and long-term
analytical needs of its sponsors. The primary sponsor is OSD;
secondary sponsors include the military services, Joint Staff,
Unified and Specified Commands, and defense agencies. Table IV.6
provides general information on LMI's FFRDC.
Table IV.6
General Information on LMI
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Provide independent, objective, and high-quality research,
studies, and analyses across the spectrum of logistics and
acquisition issues.
Maintain access to sensitive government or proprietary
information.
Core competencies Materiel management.
Acquisition.
Operational logistics.
Facilities and environment.
Force management.
Capabilities Provides high-quality, timely policy and management analyses
that are produced in an environment that encourages
independent thinking and objective results.
Maintains a high-quality, interdisciplinary research staff
that combines long-standing experience with current
knowledge.
Draws on a variety of current analytic tools, such as
models, technologies, and databases.
Enforces a rigorous review of project results to ensure that
the analyses and conclusions are thorough and sound.
Maintains technical direction, oversight, and responsibility
for its work.
Provides an understanding of the logistics and acquisition
issues across DOD, especially the complex interrelationships
of responsibilities, and identifies opportunities to improve
efficiency and effectiveness.
Focuses on the high-priority needs of the sponsors,
especially enduring cross-cutting issues.
Criteria for Consistent with LMI's mission, purpose, and capabilities.
defining core work
Consistent with core competencies.
Consistent with special relationship:
Objective, high-quality work on subjects integral to the
mission and sponsor's operations.
Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest caused
by service, commercial, or other involvement.
Broad access to sensitive government or proprietary
information.
Comprehensive knowledge of sponsor needs, issues, and
problems.
Long-term continuity of knowledge on issues and problems of
enduring concern, including maintaining corporate memory for
sponsors and providing a quick response when appropriate in
areas of established expertise.
Responsive to emerging and evolving needs of sponsors.
Oversight and LMI Advisory Board\a
responsibilities
Provides and exchanges information on issues of general
interest.
Reviews, determines, and establishes the long-term research
agenda.
Prioritizes specific studies and research projects.
Identifies sources and levels of funding for sponsor
studies.
Reviews and establishes the level of support required of the
FFRDC.
Evaluates the quality, efficiency, and substance of the LMI
support.
Executive agent and task sponsors
Determine that a proposed project is appropriate and within
LMI's charter and that LMI is the most effective source.
Incur sole responsibility for the conduct and oversight of
the annual and comprehensive reviews.
Contracting officer's representative
Analyzes task orders for compliance with the DOD Management
Plan, the FFRDC contract, and the appropriateness of work
assigned to LMI.
Reviews all documents for each task order requested by the
sponsor to verify appropriateness of work.
Board of Trustees
Develops the strategic plan and has final authority over the
Institute's business and assets.
LMI's president and vice presidents
Oversee task orders for conformance with the DOD Management
Plan, the FFRDC contract, and the appropriateness of work
assigned to LMI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The LMI Advisory Board includes senior members of sponsor
activities; Assistant and Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense;
Secretaries of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force;
Marine Corps; Coast Guard; and defense agencies.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
LABORATORIES
=========================================================== Appendix V
DOD has three FFRDCs that are classified as research and development
laboratories--Lincoln Laboratory, SEI, and IDA-Communications and
Computing Center. These laboratories were created to fill voids in
which in-house and private sector research and development centers
were unable to meet DOD's needs and engage in projects that emphasize
the evolution and demonstration of advanced concepts and technology
and the transfer or transition of technology. Specific objectives
for these FFRDCs are to (1) maintain long-term competence in areas
where no government in-house or private sector resources exist and
(2) develop and transfer important new technology to the private
sector so the government can benefit from a broader base of
expertise.
LINCOLN LABORATORY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1
Lincoln Laboratory was established as an FFRDC in 1951 under the
sponsorship of the Air Force, Army, and Navy.\1 The Air Force is
currently the primary sponsor. Lincoln Laboratory was created to
perform research and development that is pertinent to the national
defense, with particular emphasis on advanced electronics. Table V.1
provides general information regarding Lincoln Laboratory.
Table V.1
General Information on Lincoln
Laboratory
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Demonstrate the feasibility of and conduct research and
development on advanced systems concepts and technology with
an emphasis on advanced electronics, and build the necessary
prototype/demonstration components for the sponsors.
Conduct research and development in other relevant technical
areas.
Produce models of laboratory-developed equipment suitable
for field demonstration and test by appropriate military
services or agencies.
Furnish necessary procurement information concerning such
equipment.
Provide technical advice on military technology areas.
Core competencies Ballistic missile defense.
Communications.
Space surveillance.
Air defense.
Surface surveillance.
Advanced electronics technology.
Capabilities Provides independent advice on military technology issues.
Maintains high-quality, experienced, and interdisciplinary
research staff who are productive, have published
extensively, and are recognized regularly by their technical
peers.
Draws on the resources of and interacts with the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world's
leading technical universities, to produce technical
advances.
Criteria for Consistent with Lincoln Laboratory's mission, purpose, and
defining core work capabilities.
Consistent with core competencies.
Consistent with special relationship:
Objective, high-quality work on subjects integral to the
mission of the sponsor.
Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest.
Broad access to sensitive government or proprietary
information.
Comprehensive knowledge of sponsor needs and problems.
Long-term continuity of knowledge of sponsor issues.
Oversight and Joint Advisory Committee\a
responsibilities
Annually reviews and approves the research and development
program.
Executive agent
Reviews policy and administers the contract.
Contracting officer
Performs continuing reviews of Lincoln Laboratory's
management.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Joint Advisory Committee is chaired by the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering and made up of secretariat-level
representatives from the services, Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
--------------------
\1 The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency became a sponsor in
1958.
SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2
SEI was created as an FFRDC in 1984 by Congress to address the
transition of software engineering technology. Its purpose is to
provide leadership in advancing state-of-the-art software engineering
and improving the quality of systems that depend on software. The
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is the primary sponsor.
Table V.2 provides general information regarding SEI.
Table V.2
General Information on SEI
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Improve the quality of operational software in software-
intensive systems.
Accelerate the reduction to practice of modern software
engineering technology.
Institute the use of modern software engineering techniques
and methods throughout the defense systems community.
Establish standards of excellence for software engineering.
Core competencies Software engineering and supporting software technology.
Technology transition.
Capabilities Establishes state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice in
software engineering technology and maintains appropriate
metrics.
Identifies and assesses needs and opportunities for software
technology transition.
Engineers technology for use, as required.
Demonstrates, disseminates, and encourages the use of such
technology products throughout the software community.
Conducts research and development in support of technology
areas judged to be the most essential and to have the
highest potential payoff.
Evaluates, develops, and conducts courses and seminars that
support technology transitioning and influences software
engineering curricula throughout the educational community,
industry, and government.
Criteria for Consistent with SEI's mission, purpose, and capabilities.
defining core work
Consistent with core competencies.
Consistent with special relationship:
High-quality work.
Freedom from real or perceived biases or conflicts of
interest.
Ability to protect sensitive government or proprietary
information.
Comprehensive knowledge of sponsor programs, operations,
needs, and problems and the technical opportunities that
will address these problems.
Relationship with and ability to influence the software
engineering infrastructure.
Must be sponsored by an appropriate organization.
Oversight and Primary sponsor
responsibilities
Provides overall strategic policy and program guidance to
the FFRDC, administrative agent, and Air Force Electronics
Systems Center for the management of the FFRDC.
Sets general guidance for work that is appropriate.
Conducts in-depth program reviews two to three times per
year.
Joint Advisory Committee\a
Provides overall policy and program guidance to the FFRDC.
Reviews the FFRDC's work plan.
Provides recommendations on priorities.
Provides advice to the primary sponsor on strategy and
current and proposed programs.
Advises and assists the FFRDC in implementing policies
affecting its status as an FFRDC, relations with federal
agencies, and general operations.
Administrative agent
Implements strategic guidance and oversees the day-to-day
activities for the primary sponsor.
Administers the FFRDC, including providing guidance to the
FFRDC.
Determines through technical and contractual reviews that
all work is consistent with the Institute's program plan and
mission and federal regulations.
Conducts three to four financial/program management reviews
each year.
Joint Program Office Site Director
Reviews and approves all work performed by the FFRDC.
Senior technical review group
Provides technical advice to the advisory committee and
primary sponsor to determine the relevance of technical
objectives and priorities.
Reviews program plans and progress to date.
Program technical advisory panels\b
Provide customer guidance on current activities and future
plans.
Perform technical reviews of projects.
Board of Visitors
Reviews the plans and accomplishments of the FFRDC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Joint Advisory Committee is composed of senior executives from
the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense Information Systems Agency.
\b Program technical advisory panels have included the Software
Process Program Advisory Board, Software Acquisition Metrics Working
Group, and Risk Taxonomy Users Group.
IDA-COMMUNICATIONS AND
COMPUTING CENTER
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3
As part of IDA, the Communications and Computing Center's purpose is
to promote national security, public welfare, and the advancement of
science by performing analyses, evaluations, and reports on matters
of interest to the U.S. government. The primary sponsor of the
center is the National Security Agency. Table V.3 provides general
information regarding IDA-Communications and Computing Center.
Table V.3
General Information on IDA-
Communications and Computing Center
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Perform applied research and development in the specialized
fields of cryptomathematics and cryptocomputing and in
related fields, such as speech research and special signals
processing techniques.
Maintain a staff with expertise and currency in the relevant
disciplines, familiarity with National Security Agency
needs, and access to experts in industry and academia.
Core competencies Cryptologic mathematics.
Computing sciences.
Basic communications theory.
Capabilities Not available.
Criteria for Consistent with IDA-Communications and Computing's mission,
defining core work purpose, and capabilities.
Consistent with core competencies.
Consistent with special relationship:
High-quality work.
Freedom from real or perceived biases or conflicts of
interest.
Ability to protect sensitive government or proprietary
information.
Comprehensive knowledge of sponsor programs, operations,
needs, and problems and the technical opportunities that
will address these problems.
Relationship with and ability to influence the software
engineering infrastructure.
Oversight and Primary sponsor
responsibilities
Ensures that the IDA program deals with and adheres to
issues that the sponsors collectively believe are important
and in the national interest to resolve.
Ensures that the work is within the scope of IDA's charter.
IDA Advisory Group\a
Periodically evaluates IDA's overall research effort.
Provides information on the general interest and priorities
of sponsors.
Offers guidance on the general scope of IDA's work.
Executive agent
Administers IDA work for OSD and the Joint Staff and their
components.
Administers IDA work done for defense agencies at the
agencies' request.
Contracting officer
Reviews contract tasks for appropriateness and funding
limits.
Contracting officer's representative
Reviews all task orders for appropriateness and compliance
with the DOD Management Plan.
Administrative contracting officer
Coordinates the oversight of all of the business operations
of the FFRDC.
Reviews and approves all major subcontracting transactions.
Board of Trustees
Oversees the operation of IDA as specified in the
certificate of incorporation with the State of Delaware.
Exercises quality control.
IDA management
Review and direct all of the operations of the FFRDC.
Ensure compliance with all aspects of the FFRDC charter and
sponsoring agreements.
Exercise day-to-day control of staff activities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a IDA's Advisory Group is chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology or his designee, and the members of
the group include the heads of the principal offices that sponsor
work at IDA.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
=========================================================== Appendix V
RELATED FFRDC PRODUCTS
=========================================================== Appendix 0
Federally Funded R&D Centers: Observations on DOD Actions to Improve
Management (GAO/T-NSIAD-96-117, Mar. 5, 1996).
Defense Research and Development: Fiscal Year 1993 Trustee and
Advisor Costs at Federally Funded Centers (GAO/NSIAD-96-27, Dec. 26,
1995).
Federal Research: Information on Fees for Selected Federally Funded
Research and Development Centers (GAO/RCED-96-31FS, Dec. 8, 1995).
Federally Funded R&D Centers: Use of Fee by the MITRE Corporation
(GAO/NSIAD-96-26, Nov. 27, 1995).
Federally Funded R&D Centers: Use of Contract Fee by The Aerospace
Corporation (GAO/NSIAD-95-174, Sept. 28, 1995).
Defense Research and Development: Affiliations of Fiscal Year 1993
Trustees for Federally Funded Centers (GAO/NSIAD-95-135, July 26,
1995).
A History of the Department of Defense Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA-BP-ISS-157,
June 1995).
Compensation to Presidents, Senior Executives, and Technical Staff at
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, DOD Office of the
Inspector General (95-182, May 1, 1995).
Comprehensive Review of the Department of Defense's Fee-Granting
Process for Federally Funded Research and Development Centers,
Director of Defense Research and Engineering, May 1, 1995.
The Role of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers in the
Mission of the Department of Defense, Defense Science Board Task
Force, April 25, 1995.
Addendum to Final Audit Report on Contracting Practices for the Use
and Operations of DOD-Sponsored Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers, DOD Office of the Inspector General (95-048A,
Apr. 19, 1995).
DOD's Federally Funded Research and Development Centers,
Congressional Research Service (95-489 SPR, Apr. 13, 1995).
Report on Department of Defense Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers and Affiliated Organizations, Director of Defense
Research and Engineering, April 3, 1995.
Federally Funded R&D Centers: Executive Compensation at The
Aerospace Corporation (GAO/NSIAD-95-75, Feb. 7, 1995).
Contracting Practices for the Use and Operations of DOD-Sponsored
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, DOD Office of the
Inspector General (95-048, Dec. 2, 1994).
Sole Source Justifications for DOD-Sponsored Federally Funded
Research and Development Centers, DOD Office of the Inspector General
(94-012, Nov. 4, 1993).
DOD's Federally Funded Research and Development Centers,
Congressional Research Service (93-549 SPR, June 3, 1993).
Inadequate Federal Oversight of Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (102-98, July
1992).
DOD's Federally Funded Research and Development Centers,
Congressional Research Service (91-378 SPR, Apr. 29, 1991).
*** End of document. ***